An Adaptive Management Plan for Buck Creek

Restoration in West Michigan Using GIS Analysis

Written by: Sean P. Wylie
NRM 495 - Capstone
22 April 2016

1
Introduction
Good water quality benefits ecosystems and economies that depend on streams, by
improving productivity for natural communities and local businesses. Thriving natural
communities produce goods and services that can be capitalized by local businesses, namely
fisheries and recreation. Recreational angling generates revenue for charter fishing firms and
funds for conservation programs, which both require abundant fisheries for success. This
necessitates sufficient water quality in the streams they depend on, which is determined by land
use throughout the surrounding watershed. A streams discharge, chemistry, and biodiversity are
influenced by its watersheds land use, especially urban land cover.
Urban land cover degrades water quality because its associated impervious surface area
has a disproportionate impact on stream health relative to total watershed size (Allan 2004).
Impervious surfaces prevent infiltration and promote runoff, which amplifies stormwater
discharge and accelerates erosion (Walsh et al. 2005). Impervious surfaces alter watershed
hydrology such that pollution loading is increased, available habitat is degraded, and ultimately
biodiversity is reduced (Paul and Meyer 2001). When a watershed reaches 8-12% total
imperviousness, its stream crosses a threshold into severe degradation, with water quality
characterized by rapidly rising discharge, excessive total suspended solids (TSS), and diminished
dissolved oxygen (DO) (Wang et al. 2001). Poor water quality across this degradation threshold
is not suitable for maintaining a sustainable brown trout (Salmo trutta) population, whose
historic presence in Buck Creek has earned it the designated use of a coldwater fishery.
Adaptive management and ecological restoration of Buck Creeks watershed land use is
essential for sufficiently improving water quality to support its native brown trout population and
maintain the streams designated use. Benthic macroinvertebrates are foundational to stream

2
trophic webs because they support secondary and tertiary consumers, and there is evidence
suggesting that minimal watershed imperviousness disproportionately pressures
macroinvertebrate populations (Cuffney et al. 2010). Previous research demonstrates that
restoring the stream channel alone is inadequate for improving habitat heterogeneity and
macroinvertebrate biodiversity, that watershed-scale land use replacements of imperviousness
with vegetation are necessary for restoration success (Violin et al. 2011). Watershed
management using stormwater retention strategies show efficacy at improving habitat and
biodiversity, by reducing stream discharge during storm events and thereby controlling pollutant
loading and sediment deposition (Walsh et al. 2015). Riparian forests also remove pollutants and
improve biodiversity by stabilizing streambanks, depositing leaf litter, and casting shade on the
channel, which provide important abiotic conditions that aquatic ecosystems depend on
(Sweeney et al. 2004).

Resource Objective
This adaptive management plans objective is to sufficiently improve Buck Creeks water
quality to support a viable brown trout population adequate for the streams designated use as a
coldwater fishery. Secondary objectives are to reduce total imperviousness within Buck Creeks
watershed, establish riparian buffers alongside critically-impaired stream segments, and restore
wetlands at strategic locations to promote stormwater infiltration and retention. GIS and L-THIA
were used to model and analyze land use throughout Buck Creeks watershed and designate
implementation units (IUs) with specific management prescriptions and restoration objectives.

Hypothesis

3
Stormwater runoff from impervious surface cover in the City of Grandville, City of
Wyoming, City of Grand Rapids, City of Kentwood, Byron Township, Gaines Township, Dorr
Township, and Leighton Township impairs Buck Creeks ecological processes by scouring
streambeds, eroding streambanks, increasing sedimentation, and transporting pollutants (Grand
Valley Metropolitan Council 2003, Figure 1, Figure 5). Buck Creeks macroinvertebrate
communities are severely impacted by these stressors, affecting brown trout and other species in
higher trophic levels (Grand Valley Metropolitan Council 2003). I hypothesize that replacing
impervious land use with native plant communities throughout Buck Creeks watershed will
significantly improve water quality to support a viable brown trout population enough for a
recreational coldwater fishery in Buck Creek.

Methodology
The study site is Buck Creeks watershed, located in southwestern Kent County and
northeastern Allegan County, Michigan (Figure 1). The watershed is 131.8km and is intersected
by a railroad and by the state road US-131 (Figure 3). Buck Creek is an urbanized stream
draining directly into the Grand River.
Datasets collected from the United States Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource
Conservation Service (USDA: NRCS) Geospatial Data Gateway, the Multi-Resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium: National Land Cover Database (MRLC: NLCD), Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the State of Michigan GIS Open Data were
imported into Esris ArcMap software. All datasets were projected to the coordinate plane NAD
1983 Michigan GeoRef (Meters). Datasets were clipped to either the spatial extent of Buck
Creeks watershed or to the surrounding cities and townships. Two MRLC: NLCD raster images

4
from 2011 depicting percent developed imperviousness and percent tree canopy were converted
into polygon vectors for analysis with the remainder of the datasets.
IUs will be designated as either riparian buffers or wetland restorations. Riparian IUs
were selected by performing a location query to targeting sites with both >50% imperviousness
and <50% canopy cover within a 30m buffer zone around Buck Creek (Figure 2, Figure 3).
Wetland IUs were selected by performing a location query targeting sites with both >50%
imperviousness and <50% canopy cover within areas that the DEQ determined to possess
wetland potential (Figure 2, Figure 3). Planting plans for each IU will be derived from historical
vegetation circa 1800 data (Figure 4).
I estimated the cumulative effects of proposed land use changes using Purdue
Universitys Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) model, last updated in 2011,
by digitizing the IUs in L-THIA and running the model to predict hydrologic changes.

Results
Mixed Forest land use had the greatest percent change of 6.968%, while Cropland had the
least percent change of -0.029% (Figure 7, Table 7). Woody Wetlands and Deciduous Forest
both increased by 1.809% and 1.023%, respectively (Figure 7, Table 7). Of all urban land uses,
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation had the greatest percent change of -0.524%, while LowDensity Residential had the least percent change of -0.123%, with High-Density residential only
slightly higher at a percent change of -0.174% (Figure 7, Table 7). Open Space/Park land use
changed by -0.210% and Pasture/Hay changed by merely -0.035% (Figure 7, Table 7). Mixed
Forest, Woody Wetlands, and Deciduous Forest would increase by 9.8% proportional to their

5
total area preceding restoration activity, while all other land uses combined would decrease by
only 1.091% relative to their previous area.
Woody Wetlands increased runoff the most with 0.867 ha-m, Deciduous Forest increased
runoff by 0.289 ha-m, and Mixed Forest increased runoff by 0.068 ha-m (Table 8). IUs on
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation land had the greatest runoff reduction of -1.444 ha-m,
while High-Density Residential and Low-Density Residential decreased runoff by -0.411 and 0.274 ha-m, respectively (Table 8). Open Space/Park decreased runoff by -0.174 ha-m,
Pasture/Hay by -0.003 ha-m, and Cropland by -0.004 ha-m (Table 8). However, net reduction
was only -1.0855 ha-m, or -0.159% of total runoff (Table 8).
Overall, TSS loading reduction was 1171.753 kg, nitrogen loading reduction was 33.756
kg, and phosphorus loading reduction was 9.793 kg (Figure 8). 3.139 kg was removed from the
zinc load, while merely 0.295 and 0.272 kg of copper and lead were removed, respectively
(Figure 8). IUs in urban land use accounted for nearly all of the TSS loading reduction, which
includes 813.130 kg from Commercial/Industrial/Transportation, as well as 214.120 kg from
High-Density Residential, and 142.02 kg from Low-Density Residential (Table 9). All other
pollutants follow the same trend as TSS removal, because restoring
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation has the greatest loading reductions, followed by HighDensity Residential and then Low-Density Residential (Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13,
Table 14). Open Space/Park, Pasture/Hay, and Cropland barely contributed any pollutant loading
to Buck Creek (Table 10, Table 11, Table 12, Table 13, Table 14).

Implementation
Beech-Sugar Maple Forest

6
The State of Michigan GIS Open Data land cover circa 1800 datasets Beech-Sugar
Maple Forest classification corresponds to the Michigan Natural Features Inventorys (MNFI)
Mesic Southern Forest description (Table 2). 86 wetland IUs and 70 riparian IUs were
selected, more restoration sites than any other community type in the Buck Creek watershed.
Any exotic species on-site will be removed prior to restoration activity, because Mesic Southern
Forest communities are especially susceptible to invasion (Kost et al. 2007). Deer exclosures
will be placed around clusters of forbs and saplings to prevent overbrowsing, because Mesic
Southern Forests are also susceptible to deer herbivory (Kost et al. 2007). Either of these
autogenic disturbances can impede restoration success when the plant community is still
sensitive prior to establishment.
Seeding will be approached on a forbs first basis, followed by trees, and shrubs last so
they do not shade the ground layer and because they can tolerate shade from the overstory
canopy (Table 2). All species will be seeded evenly throughout each IU so establishment occurs
on the microgradient scale, depending on which species tolerate which abiotic conditions better
than others. Mesic Southern Forests are also prone to windthrow disturbance, and over time
become a mosaic of different-aged stands ranging from early-successional to old-growth, so
simulating this with timber harvests can benefit the ecosystem with greater structural complexity
and species richness (Kost et al. 2007). Additionally, killing large trees via girdling or drill-andfill and leaving them standing creates habitat, as well as felling trees and leaving them on the
ground (Kost et al. 2007). Future monitoring will determine which trees are suitable candidates.

Black Ash Swamp

7
The State of Michigan GIS Open Data land cover circa 1800 datasets Black Ash
Swamp classification corresponds to the Michigan Natural Features Inventorys (MNFI)
Northern Hardwood Swamp description, of which 33 wetland IUs and three riparian IUs were
selected (Table 3). Northern Hardwood Swamp depends on black ash dominance to maintain
appropriate water levels via evapotranspiration, so timber harvests on these restoration sites will
be prohibited (Kost et al. 2007). Northern Hardwood Swamp also depends on flooding and
windthrow disturbance to create structural heterogeneity, so a hands-off approach to these
processes is vital for community development (Kost et al. 2007). Black ash grows slowly, so
saplings will be transplanted to accelerate establishment (Kost et al. 2007). Additionally, all
ground layer species will be seeded simultaneously in an even distribution, so each one
establishes in tolerable conditions.

Mixed Hardwood Swamp

The State of Michigan GIS Open Data land cover circa 1800 datasets Mixed Hardwood
Swamp classification corresponds to the Michigan Natural Features Inventorys (MNFI)
Hardwood-Conifer Swamp description, of which 66 wetland IUs and 17 riparian IUs were
selected (Table 4). Ground layer species will be seeded depending on whether they are adapted
to hummocks or hollows, and distributed evenly on either to account for microgradient tolerance.
Hardwood-Conifer Swamps are more sensitive than the other community types, because they are
prone to hydrologic disturbance, invasive species, and deer herbivory (Kost et al. 2007). For
these reasons hydrologic alterations (ditches, berms, tile-drains, etc.) and exotic species must be
removed before restoration activity starts. Deer exclosures will also be implemented where
young vegetation is vulnerable, to protect it until establishment. However, Hardwood-Conifer

8
Swamps can benefit from felling trees for coarse woody debris and killing standing trees for
snags, both of which create essential habitat within the ecosystem.

White Pine-Mixed Hardwood Forest

The State of Michigan GIS Open Data land cover circa 1800 datasets White PineMixed Hardwood Forest classification corresponds to the Michigan Natural Features
Inventorys (MNFI) Dry-Mesic Northern Forest description, of which 16 wetland IUs and 36
riparian IUs were selected (Table 5). Dry-Mesic Northern Forest is mostly sensitive to invasive
species, so exotic species will be removed prior to seeding (Kost et al. 2007). Seeding will
prioritize forbs first, then trees, and shrubs last so they do not shade out the ground layer nor
prematurely compete with trees. Prescribed fire is vital for this communitys development,
because fire suppression can prevent pine regeneration, allow exotic species invasion, and
facilitate the succession of shade-tolerant tree species (Kost et al. 2007). A prescribed burn
interval of five years will be implemented at the start, and frequency will either be increased or
decreased depending on how fire effects the ecosystem. Where fire management is not feasible
or permissible, stand thinning, girdling, and herbiciding will be used to simulate similar effects
(Kost et al. 2007).

Mixed Oak Savanna

The State of Michigan GIS Open Data land cover circa 1800 datasets Mixed Oak
Savanna classification corresponds to the Michigan Natural Features Inventorys (MNFI) OakPine Barrens description, of which there were no wetland IUs and only one riparian IU (Table
6). Fire is crucial for the development of Oak-Pine Barrens communities, so prescribed burns are

9
the most important management tool in restoring these ecosystems (Kost et al. 2007). Not only
are Oak-Pine Barrens vulnerable to invasive species, they are susceptible to succession by
encroaching woody vegetation, so a prescribed burn frequency of three years is necessary to
prevent other plant species from significantly altering the community structure (Kost et al.
2007). Grasses and forbs in the ground layer will be planted first and given a full burn cycle to
establish, so they are not outcompeted by woody vegetation. Afterward, shrubs and trees will be
transplanted throughout the restoration site, far enough apart so there is no greater than 60%
canopy cover.

Monitoring
Monitoring will prioritize finding and removing exotic species that invade the restoration
sites, assessing plant establishment, and surveying indicators of ecosystem function. Annual site
walks will be conducted at each IU to search for invasive species, check deer exclosures and
target trees for harvesting, felling, or girdling. An additional site walk will be conducted on
recently-burned IUs to assess regeneration progress and efficacy of removing undesirable
species. Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys will also be conducted annually at riparian IUs to
determine whether or not species richness is improving, especially pertaining to mayflies
(Ephemeroptera spp.), stoneflies (Plecoptera spp.), and caddisflies (Trichoptera spp.).
Additionally, monitoring will seek to identify unaddressed problems that may jeopardize
ecological restoration success, in which case revisions will be made to this plan so future
management can implement solutions to those problems.

Evaluation

10
Ecological restoration success will be measured based on the abundance of the brown
trout population, which will be estimated annually and compared to baseline data. Brown trout
population growth will be considered a success, while population decline will be considered a
failure. In the case of failure new IUs will be selected using incrementally less restrictive criteria,
starting with >40% imperviousness and <60% canopy cover with adjustments over time to >30%
imperviousness and less than <70%, and so forth. Subsequent brown trout population
assessments will inform managers whether ecological restoration is successful, and when
abundance does measurably increase, managing established restoration sites will be prioritized
instead of implementing new ones.

Conclusion
The proposed ecological restorations throughout the Buck Creek watershed significantly
improve native vegetation area and significantly reduce TSS, but do not significantly reduce total
imperviousness and runoff. Additional restoration sites must be designated in subsequent years
to significantly increase Buck Creeks brown trout population. However, water quality
improvements can be accomplished in the short-term, and new recreation opportunities will be
available for sightseers, hikers, and birdwatchers when restoration sites develop and mature.
While not as lucrative as recreational angling, these outdoor activities could provide some
economic benefit in the meantime, until a viable brown trout population is restored. IUs selected
in the future should prioritize riparian buffers on stream segments crossed by either railroad or
US-131, because they are critical areas that can be strategically restored to have the greatest
effect on improving native vegetation, water quality, and the brown trout population.

11
References
Allan JD. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:257-284.
Blanton P, Marcus WA. 2009. Railroads, roads and lateral disconnection in the river landscapes
of the continental United States. Geomorphology 112:212-227.
Cuffney TF, Brightbill RA, May JT, Waite IR. 2010. Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to
environmental changes associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan areas.
Ecological Applications 20(5):1384-1401.
Daufresne M, Renault O. 2006. Population fluctuations, regulation and limitation in streamliving brown trout. Oikos 113(3):459-468.
Grand Valley Metropolitan Council. 2003. Buck Creek Watershed Management Plan (Project
No. G02408). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kost MA, Albert DA, Cohen JG, Slaughter BS, Schillo RK, Weber CR, Chapman KA. 2007.
Natural communities of Michigan: Classification and description. Report prepared for
Michigan Department of Natural Resources in the Wildlife Division and the Forest,
Mineral, and Fire Management Division; Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing,
Michigan.
Ma Y. 2004. L-THIA: A useful hydrologic impact assessment model. Nature and Science
2(1):68-73.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2015. Potential wetland restoration [Dataset].
Retrieved from http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/435aeaf8863d4a2ea8ebd
ab669a52543_19
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2015. River valley segments [Dataset].

12
Retrieved from http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/2d27163e3819446bb395
6474fda3fc11_26
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory [Dataset].
Retrieved from http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a86598be317040febc67
941ac7a2768e_18
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2016. Watershed Boundary 12 Digit
[Dataset]. Retrieved from http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/48e1e6e762f6
44a09f00c99ae794f69a_20
State of Michigan GIS Open Data. 2015. Minor civil divisions (cities & townships) [Dataset].
Retrieved from http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/0a4035a25683430284ba
e0637b7e464c_2
State of Michigan GIS Open Data. 2015. Railroads [Dataset]. Retrieved from
http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/45c3c91882054b688bde241db449aa71_
9
State of Michigan GIS Open Data. 2015. State owned roads [Dataset]. Retrieved from
http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a54ba77223a641f48c0cbabe7da4a190_
8
State of Michigan GIS Open Data. 2016. Counties [Dataset]. Retrieved from
http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/67a8ff23b5f54f15b7133b8c30981441_0
State of Michigan GIS Open Data. 2016. Land cover circa 1800 [Dataset]. Retrieved from
http://gis.michigan.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/3269b9e0d086429c8472c508fe5ad6bb_
2
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2011. NLCD 2011 percent developed

13
imperviousness [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2011. NLCD 2011 tree canopy cartographic
[Dataset]. Retrieved from http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd11_data.php
Paul MJ & Meyer JL. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 32:333-365.
Purdue University. 2011. L-THIA [Dataset]. Retrieved from http://lthia.agriculture.purdue.edu/
Sweeney BW, Bott TL, Jackson JK, Kaplan LA, Newbold JD, Standley LJ, Hession WC,
Horwitz RJ, Wolman MG. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of
stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 101(39):14132-14137.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2013. Soil
survey spatial and tabular data (SSURGO 2.2) [Dataset]. Retrieved from
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2014. Digital
ortho county mosaic of 7.5 quads [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov
Violin CR, Cada P, Sudduth EB, Hassett BA, Penrose DL, & Bernhardt ES. 2011. Effects of
urbanization and urban stream restoration on the physical and biological structure of
stream ecosystems. Ecological Applications 21(6):1932-1949.
Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Bos DG, Imberger SJ. 2015. Restoring a stream through retention of
urban stormwater runoff: a catchment-scale experiment in a social-ecological system.
Freshwater Science 34(3):1161-1168.
Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP. 2005. The urban
stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North

14
American Benthological Society 24(3):706-723.
Wang L, Lyons J, & Kanehl P. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across
multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28(2):255-266.
Wang X. 2001. Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed
context. Journal of Environmental Management 61:25-36.

15

Figure 1. Buck Creek is mostly contained within Kent County, with its southernmost tip in
Allegan County. Grandville, Wyoming, Kentwood, Byron, and Gaines have the most influence.

16

Figure 2. Imperviousness is most concentrated along the span of US-131. Canopy cover is most
concentrated around the trunk and headwaters. Both do not typically occupy the same space.

17

Figure 3. Wetland IUs are concentrated in the large area with wetland potential that the railroad
crosses over. Many historic wetlands that were located there no longer remain.

18

Figure 4. Riparian and wetland IUs overlaid on vegetation community types circa 1800. The
Buck Creek watershed is primarily Mesic Southern Forest.

19

Figure 5. Orthophoto showing urban sprawl from north to south in the Buck Creek watershed.
Cropland is mostly in the south near the headwaters, with some on the west side of US-131.

20

Figure 6. Digitized 201 wetland IUs and 127 riparian IUs into L-THIA model to predict changes
in land use and pollutant loadings after implementing ecological restoration.
Table 1. The Buck Creek watersheds total area, total imperviousness, and net change.
Total Area (ha)
13100.8
Old Imperviousness (ha)

2569.07

New Imperviousness (ha)

2562.85

Imperviousness Change (ha)

-6.22

Old Imperviousness (%)

19.6101

New Imperviousness (%)

19.5626

Imperviousness Change (%)

-0.0475

21
Table 2. Mesic Southern Forest Species List (Kost et al. 2007).
GROUND LAYER
SHRUB LAYER
Spring beauty
Virginia waterleaf Sugar maple (Acer
(Claytonia virginica)
(Hydrophyllum
saccharum)
virginianum)
Cut-leaved toothwort
May apple
American elm (Ulmus
(Dentaria laciniata)
(Podophyllum
americana)
peltatum)
Squirrel corn (Dicentra Bloodroot
Ironwood (Ostrya
canadensis)
(Sanguinaria
virginiana)
canadensis)
Dutchmans breeches
Common trillium Pawpaw (Asimina
(D. cucullaria)
(Trillium
triloba)
grandiflorum)
White trout lily
Large-flowered
Musclewood
(Erythronium albidum) bellwort
(Carpinus
(Uvularia
caroliniana)
grandiflora)
Yellow trout lily (E.
Maidenhair fern
Alternate-leaved
americanum)
(Adiantum
dogwood (Cornus
pedatum)
alternifolia)
False rue anemone
Wild leek (Allium Flowering dogwood
(Isopyrum biternatum) tricoccum)
(Cornus florida)
Dolls eyes (Actaea
White bear sedge Leatherwood (Dirca
pachypoda)
(Carex albursina) palustris)
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Seersucker sedge Witch-hazel
(Arisaema triphyllum) (Carex
(Hamamelis
plantaginea)
virginiana)
Wild ginger (Asarum
Enchanters
Spicebush (Lindera
canadense)
nightshade
benzoin)
(Circaea
lutetiana)
Blue cohosh
Beech drops
American fly
(Caulophyllum
(Epifagus
honeysuckle (Lonicera
thalictroides)
virginiana)
canadensis)
Wild geranium
Running
Prickly gooseberry
(Geranium maculatum) strawberry bush
(Ribes cynosbati)
(Euonymus
obovata)
Sharp-lobed hepatica
Red elderberry
(Hepatica acutiloba)
(Sambucus racemosa)
Maple-leaved arrowwood (Viburnum
acerifolium)

TREE LAYER
American beech
(Fagus grandifolia)
Sugar maple (Acer
saccharum)
Bitternut hickory
(Carya cordiformis)
White ash (Fraxinus
americana)
Tulip tree
(Liriodendron
tulipifera)
White oak (Quercus
alba)
Red oak (Q. rubra)
Basswood (Tilia
americana)

22
Table 3. Northern Hardwood Swamp Species List (Kost et al. 2007).
GROUND LAYER
SHRUB LAYER
Northern bugleweed
Canada mayflower
Winterberry (Ilex
(Lycopus uniflorus)
(Maianthemum
verticillata)
canadense)
Mad-dog skullcap
Wild mint (Mentha
Tag alder (Alnus
(Scutellaria
arvensis)
rugosa)
lateriflora)
Wood anemone
Partridge berry
(Anemone
(Mitchella repens)
quinquefolia)
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Naked miterwort
(Arisaema
(Mitella nuda)
triphyllum)
False nettle
Virginia creeper
(Boehmeria
(Parthenocissus
cylindrica)
quinquefolia)
Marsh marigold
Clearweed (Pilea
(Caltha palustris)
pumila)
Pennsylvania bitter
Elliptic shinleaf
cress (Cardamine
(Pyrola elliptica)
pensylvanica)
Fringed sedge (Carex Dwarf raspberry
crinita)
(Rubus pubescens)
Great bladder sedge
Water parsnip (Sium
(C. intumescens)
suave)
Small enchanters
Skunk cabbage
nightshade (Circaea
(Symplocarpus
alpina)
foetidus)
Goldthread (Coptis
Wild violets (Viola
trifolia)
spp.)
Fragrant bedstraw
Sensitive fern
(Galium triflorum)
(Onoclea sensibilis)
Fowl manna grass
Cinnamon fern
(Glyceria striata)
(Osmunda
cinnamomea)
Jewelweed
Royal fern (O.
(Impatiens capensis) regalis)
Wild iris (Iris
Ostrich fern
versicolor)
(Matteuccia
struthiopteris)
Wood nettle
Oak fern
(Laportea
(Gymnocarpium
canadensis)
dryopteris)

TREE LAYER
Black ash (Fraxinus
nigra)
Red maple (Acer
rubrum)
Silver maple (A.
saccharinum)
American elm
(Ulmus americana)
Yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis)
Basswood (Tilia
americana)
Balsam fir (Abies
balsamea)
Northern white-cedar
(Thuja occidentalis)
Green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica)

23

Table 4. Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Species List (Kost et al. 2007).

GROUND LAYER
SHRUB LAYER
HUMMOCKS
HOLLOWS
Wild sarsaparilla
Jack-in-the-pulpit
Mountain maple (Acer
(Aralia
(Arisaema triphyllum) spicatum)
nudicaulis)
Small enchanters Beggar-ticks (Bidens
Tag alder (Alnus
nightshade
spp.)
rugosa)
(Circaea alpina)
Bluebead lily
Sedges (Carex spp.)
Paper birch (Betula
(Clintonia
papyrifera)
borealis)
Goldthread
Fowl manna grass
Musclewood
(Coptis trifolia)
(Glyceria striata)
(Carpinus caroliniana)
Bunchberry
Jewelweed (Impatiens Red-osier dogwood
(Cornus
capensis)
(Cornus stolonifera)
canadensis)
Woodfern
Northern bugle weed
Gray dogwood (C.
(Dryopteris spp.)
(Lycopus uniflorus)
foemina)
Oak fern
Sensitive fern
Winterberry (Ilex
(Gymnocarpium
(Onoclea sensibilis)
verticillata)
dryopteris)
Canada
Cinnamon fern
Poison sumac
mayflower
(Osmunda
(Toxicodendron
(Maianthemum
cinnamomea)
vernix)
canadense)
Partridge berry
Royal fern (O. regalis) Spicebush (Lindera
(Mitchella repens)
benzoin)
Naked miterwort
Golden ragwort
American fly
(Mitella nuda)
(Senecio aureus)
honeysuckle (Lonicera
canadensis)
Dwarf raspberry
Rough goldenrod
Alder-leaved
(Rubus pubescens) (Solidago rugosa)
buckthorn (Rhamnus
alnifolia)
Starflower
Skunk cabbage
(Trientalis
(Symplocarpus
borealis)
foetidus)

TREE LAYER
Red maple (Acer
rubrum)
Black ash (Fraxinus
nigra)
Yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis)
White pine (Pinus
strobus)
American elm (Ulmus
americana)
Basswood (Tilia
americana)
Northern white-cedar
(Thuja occidentalis)
Hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis)

Tamarack (Larix
laricina)
Tulip tree
(Liriodendron
tulipifera)

24
Table 5. Dry-Mesic Northern Forest Species List (Kost et al. 2007).
GROUND LAYER
SHRUB LAYER
TREE LAYER
Bracken fern (Pteridium
Balsam fir (Abies balsamea)
White pine (Pinus strobus)
aquilinum)
Wild sarsaparilla (Aralia
White spruce (Picea glauca)
Red pine (Pinus resinosa)
nudicaulis)
Pipsissewa (Chimaphila
Serviceberries (Amelanchier
Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
umbellata)
spp.)
Goldthread (Coptis trifolia)
Beaked hazelnut (Corylus
White oak (Quercus alba)
cornuta)
Bunchberry (Cornus
Bush honeysuckle (Diervilla Black oak (Q. velutina)
canadensis)
lonicera)
Trailing arbutus (Epigaea
Huckleberry (Gaylussacia
Red oak (Q. rubra)
repens)
baccata)
Wintergreen (Gaultheria
Witch-hazel (Hamamelis
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
procumbens)
virginiana)
Twin flower (Linnaea
American fly honeysuckle
Paper birch (Betula
borealis)
(Lonicera canadensis)
papyrifera)
Partridge berry (Mitchella
Choke cherry (Prunus
Quaking aspen (Populus
repens)
virginiana)
tremuloides)
Gay wings (Polygala
Blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) Big-tooth aspen (P.
paucifolia)
grandidentata)
Starflower (Trientalis
Balsam poplar (P.
borealis)
balsamifera)
Indian pipes (Monotropa
spp.)
Coral root orchids
(Corallorhiza spp.)
pine-drops (Pterospora
andromedea)

25
Table 6. Oak-Pine Barrens Species List (Kost et al. 2007).
GROUND LAYER
SHRUB LAYER
Little bluestem (Andropogon Serviceberry (Amelanchier
scoparius)
spp.)
Big bluestem (Andropogon
Bearberry (Arctostaphylos
gerardii)
uva-ursi)
Pennsylvania sedge (Carex
New Jersey tea (Ceanothus
pensylvanica)
americanus)
Prairie heart-leaved aster
Sweetfern (Comptonia
(Aster oolentangiensis)
peregrina)
False foxglove (Aureolaria
Alternate-leaved dogwood
spp.)
(Cornus alternifolia)
Tickseed (Coreopsis
Flowering dogwood (C.
lanceolata)
florida)
Poverty grass (Danthonia
American hazelnut (Corylus
spicata)
americana)
Hair grass (Deschampsia
Beaked hazelnut (C. cornuta)
flexuosa)
Flowering spurge (Euphorbia Hawthorn species (Crataegus
corollata)
spp.)
Woodland sunflower
Huckleberry (Gaylussacia
(Helianthus divaricatus)
baccata)
White pea (Lathyrus
Wild plum (Prunus
ochroleucus)
americana)
Hairy bush clover (Lespedeza Choke cherry (P. virginiana)
hirta)
Cylindrical blazing star
Sand cherry (P. pumila)
(Liatris cylindracea)
Wild lupine (Lupinus
Dwarf chinquapin oak
perennis)
(Quercus prinoides)
Wild bergamot (Monarda
Pasture rose (Rosa carolina)
fistulosa)
Wood betony (Pedicularis
Northern dewberry (Rubus
canadensis)
flagellaris)
Black oatgrass (Stipa
Prairie willow (Salix humilis)
avenacea)
Low sweet blueberry
(Vaccinium angustifolium)

TREE LAYER
White oak (Quercus alba)
Black oak (Q. velutina)
Northern pin oak (Q.
ellipsoidalis)
Bur oak (Q. macrocarpa)
White pine (Pinus strobus)
Red pine (P. resinosa)
Jack pine (P. banksiana)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Black cherry (Prunus
serotina)
Big-toothed aspen (Populus
grandidentata)
Quaking aspen (P.
tremuloides)

26
Woody
Wetlands
Cropland
Pasture/Hay
Mixed Forest
Deciduous
Forest
Commercial
& Industrial
High-density
Residential
Low-Density
Residential
Open
Space/Park -2

Change (%)

Figure 7. L-THIA prediction for the Buck Creek watersheds land use change from ecological
restoration of both riparian and wetland IUs.

-3.138862933

Zinc

-0.294835391

Copper

-0.272155746

Lead

-33.75638432

-9.793070915

-1171.752955

-1400

-1200

TSS

-1000

-800
-600
Change (kg)

-400

-200

Figure 8. L-THIA prediction for the Buck Creek watersheds pollutant loading change from
ecological restoration of both riparian and wetland IUs.

27
Table 7. Buck Creek watersheds land use net change.
Old Land
Use (ha)
Open Water
Open Space/Park
Low-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub; Scrub
Grassland; Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cropland generalized agriculture
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
Total

15.21002345
2599.834009
4011.576185
1918.982959
962.7314844
136.0802098
976.3215053
25.20003885
47.79007369
34.29005287
11.97001846
770.1311874
1243.351917
343.3505294
3.960006106
10693.72649

New
Land
Use (ha)
15.21
2594.43
4006.45
1915.65
957.691
136.08
986.312
25.2
51.1201
34.2901
11.97
769.861
1242.99
349.561
3.96001
10688.1

Land Use
Change
(ha)
0
-5.4
-5.13
-3.33
-5.04
0
9.99002
0
3.33001
0
0
-0.27
-0.36
6.21001
0

Land Use
Change
(%)
0
-0.2077
-0.1279
-0.1735
-0.5235
0
1.02323
0
6.96798
0
0
-0.0351
-0.029
1.80865
0

Table 8. Buck Creek watersheds runoff net change.

Old
Runoff
(ha-m)
Open Water
0
Open Space/Park
44.8568
Low-Density Residential
118.164
High-Density Residential
128.726
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 203.426
Barren Land
18.5405
Deciduous Forest
12.7628
Evergreen Forest
0.09745
Mixed Forest
0.46996
Shrub; Scrub
0.37375
Grassland; Herbaceous
0.07278
Pasture/Hay
18.0508
Cropland generalized agriculture
75.7864
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
59.967
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
0.31454
Total
681.607

New
Runoff
(ha-m)
0
44.6829
117.89
128.315
201.981
18.5405
13.0515
0.09745
0.5378
0.37375
0.07278
18.0483
75.7827
60.8341
0.31454
680.522

Runoff
Change
(ha-m)
0
-0.1739
-0.2738
-0.4107
-1.4444
0
0.28863
0
0.06784
0
0
-0.0025
-0.0037
0.86714
0
-1.0855

Runoff
Change
(%)
0
-0.3877
-0.2317
-0.3191
-0.71
0
2.26153
0
14.4357
0
0
-0.0137
-0.0049
1.44603
0
-0.1593

28
Table 9. Buck Creek watersheds total suspended solids net change.

Open Water
Open Space/Park
Low-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub; Scrub
Grassland; Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cropland generalized agriculture
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
Total

Old TSS
(kg)

New TSS
(kg)

0
627.9903113
61445.10165
66937.97117
114467.9582
259.5594706
102.1037639
0.775643875
3.764821148
2.984641344
1.025119975
252.7056817
56839.88624
0
0
300941.8312

0
625.555
61303.1
66723.9
113655
259.559
104.413
0.77564
4.30006
2.98464
1.02512
252.683
56837
0
0
299770

TSS
Change
(kg)
0
-2.4358
-142.02
-214.12
-813.13
0
2.30879
0
0.53524
0
0
-0.0227
-2.8758
0
0
-1171.8

TSS
Change
(%)
0
-0.3879
-0.2311
-0.3199
-0.7104
0
2.26122
0
14.2169
0
0
-0.009
-0.0051
0
0
-0.3894

Table 10. Buck Creek watersheds phosphorus load net change.

Open Water
Open Space/Park
Low-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub; Scrub
Grassland; Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cropland generalized agriculture
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
Total

Old P
Load (kg)

New P
Load (kg)

0
49.3418
980.759
1068.43
549.251
20.3935
1.2746
0.00907
0.04536
0.03629
0.08165
19.8538
985.226
0
0
3674.71

0
49.1513
978.491
1065.01
545.35
20.3935
1.30635
0.00907
0.05443
0.03629
0.08165
19.8538
985.177
0
0
3664.92

P Load
Change
(kg)
0
-0.1905
-2.268
-3.4201
-3.9009
0
0.03175
0
0.00907
0
0
0
-0.0499
0
0
-9.7931

P Load
Change
(%)
0
-0.3861
-0.2312
-0.3201
-0.7102
0
2.4911
0
20
0
0
0
-0.0051
0
0
-0.2665

29
Table 11. Buck Creek watersheds net nitrogen load net change.
Old N Load
(kg)
Open Water
Open Space/Park
Low-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub; Scrub
Grassland; Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cropland generalized agriculture
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
Total

0
403.7067613
2316.009108
2523.047056
2868.308371
166.8586877
63.81598643
0.485344413
2.3541472
1.864266858
0.657709719
162.4543005
3137.561122
0
0
11647.1274

New N Load N Load

(kg)
Change
(kg)
0
0
402.142
-1.5649
2310.66
-5.3524
2514.98
-8.0694
2847.93
-20.375
166.859
0
65.2584
1.44243
0.48534
0
2.68981
0.33566
1.86427
0
0.65771
0
162.441
-0.0136
3137.4
-0.1588
0
0
0
0
11613.4
-33.756

N Load
Change
(%)
0
-0.3876
-0.2311
-0.3198
-0.7104
0
2.26029
0
14.2582
0
0
-0.0084
-0.0051
0
0
-0.2898

Table 12. Buck Creek watersheds lead load net change.

Old Lead
Load
(kg)
Open Water
0
Open Space/Park
2.24075
Low-Density Residential
10.6368
High-Density Residential
11.5848
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 29.4971
Barren Land
0.92533
Deciduous Forest
0.28123
Evergreen Forest
0
Mixed Forest
0.00907
Shrub; Scrub
0.00907
Grassland; Herbaceous
0.00454
Pasture/Hay
0.90265
Cropland generalized agriculture
0.70307
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
0
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
0
Total
56.7989

New Lead Lead Load

Load (kg) Change
(kg)
0
0
2.23621
-0.0045
10.6095
-0.0272
11.5485
-0.0363
29.2885
-0.2087
0.92533
0
0.28576
0.00454
0
0
0.01361
0.00454
0.00907
0
0.00454
0
0.90265
0
0.70307
0
0
0
0
0
56.5267
-0.2722

Lead Load
Change (%)
0
-0.2024
-0.2559
-0.3132
-0.7074
0
1.6129
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.4792

30
Table 13. Buck Creek watersheds copper load net change.
Old Copper
Load (kg)

Open Water
Open Space/Park
Low-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub; Scrub
Grassland; Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cropland generalized agriculture
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
Total

New
Copper
Copper
Load
Load (kg) Change
(kg)
0
0
4.46789
-0.0181
17.6856
-0.0408
19.2459
-0.0635
29.2885
-0.2087
1.85519
0
1.30635
0.03175
0.00907
0
0.05443
0.00907
0.03629
0
0.00907
0
1.8053
0
1.13852
0
0
0
0
0
76.8931
-0.2948

0
4.486033874
17.7264109
19.30945015
29.4971469
1.855195
1.274596076
0.009071858
0.045359291
0.036287433
0.009071858
1.80529978
1.138518203
0
0
77.1879054

Copper
Load
Change
(%)
0
-0.4044
-0.2303
-0.3289
-0.7074
0
2.4911
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.382

Table 14. Buck Creek watersheds zinc load net change.

Open Water
Open Space/Park
Low-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Commercial/Industrial/Transportation
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Shrub; Scrub
Grassland; Herbaceous
Pasture/Hay
Cropland generalized agriculture
Woody Wetlands (swamp)
Emergent Wetlands (marsh)
Total

Old Zinc
Load (kg)

New Zinc
Load (kg)

0
2.68981
94.5288
102.984
366.167
1.1113
0.76657
0.00454
0.02722
0.02268
0.00454
1.08409
12.1245
0
0
581.52

0
2.68073
94.311
102.653
363.568
1.1113
0.78472
0.00454
0.03175
0.02268
0.00454
1.08409
12.1245
0
0
578.381

Zinc Load
Change
(kg)
0
-0.0091
-0.2177
-0.3311
-2.5991
0
0.01814
0
0.00454
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3.1389

Zinc Load
Change
(%)
0
-0.3373
-0.2303
-0.3215
-0.7098
0
2.36686
0
16.6667
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.5398